Lack of systematicity in research prioritisation processes — a scoping review of evidence syntheses

Systematic Reviews

Research

Ingrid Poulsen¹  Thomas Maribo²  Claus Vinther Nielsen³  Merete Bjerrum⁴  Karen la Cour⁵  Hans Lund⁶  Lars Tang⁷ 

[1] Department of Clinical Research, Copenhagen University Hospital, Amager and Hvidovre, Denmark;Research Unit of Nursing and Healthcare, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark;Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark;DEFACTUM Central Denmark Region, Aarhus, Denmark;Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark;DEFACTUM Central Denmark Region, Aarhus, Denmark;Regionshospital Gødstrup, Herning, Denmark;Research Unit of Nursing and Healthcare, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark;The Centre of Clinical Guidelines, Department of Clinical Medicine & The Danish Centre of Systematic Reviews — a JBI Centre of Excellence, University of Adelaide, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark;Research Unit of User Perspectives and Community-Based Interventions, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark;Section Evidence-Based Practice, Department of Health and Functioning, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, 5063, Bergen, Norway;The Research Unit PROgrez, Department of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, Næstved-Slagelse-Ringsted Hospitals, Slagelse, Denmark;Department of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark;

关键词: Evidence-based research;    Research agenda;    Research prioritisation process;    Priority setting process;    Systematicity;    Transparency;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s13643-022-02149-2

 received in 2022-03-30, accepted in 2022-11-30,  发布年份 2022

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundA systematically and transparently prepared research priority-setting process within a specific scientific area is essential in order to develop a comprehensive and progressive evidence-based approach that will have a substantial societal impact on the site of interest. On the basis of two consensus workshops, the authors suggest the following methods for all such processes: use of experts, stakeholder involvement, literature review, and ranking.ObjectivesThe identification, categorisation, and discussion of methods for preparing a research prioritisation process.MethodsEligibility criteria: Evidence synthesis includes original studies presenting a research prioritisation process and which listed the methods used to create a research prioritisation process. Only evidence syntheses related to health research were included.Data sources: We searched the following electronic databases, without limiting by date or language: MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Epistemonikos, and CINAHL EBSCO.Charting methods: The methods used were mapped and broken down into different elements, and the use of the elements was determined. To support the mapping, (A) all of the elements were collapsed into unique categories, and (B) four essential categories were selected as crucial to a successful research prioritisation process.ResultsTwelve evidence syntheses were identified, including 416 original studies. The identification and categorisation of methods used resulted in 13 unique categories of methods used to prepare a research agenda.ConclusionNone of the identified categories was used in all of the original studies. Surprisingly, all four of the essential categories were used in only one of the 416 original studies identified. There is seemingly no international consensus on which methods to use when preparing a research prioritisation process.Protocol registrationThe protocol was registered in Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/dygz8/).

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© The Author(s) 2022

【 图 表 】

13690_2022_1011_Article_IEq4.gif

40644_2022_507_Article_IEq1.gif

Fig. 3

12902_2022_1244_Article_IEq30.gif

12902_2022_1244_Article_IEq28.gif

12982_2022_119_Article_IEq180.gif